About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> there are restraints. >> we're going to be debating -- >> in the pentagon and the cia. >> i mean, his little deputies are over there telling him what he can and can't do? >> this is going to be an ongoing debate in this program, there's no question about it. this is a whole new world. exit question. the united nations human rights council is now examining drone strikes. if some or all of anti- terrorist drone use is found to constitute war crimes, and the u.n. rules the matter to the icc, which is the u.n.'s international criminal court, will president obama be able to travel overseas for the rest of his life without fearing ending up in the icc docket? >> you shoe tell the icc to mind its own business but we should have the congress of the united states and the leaders of the united states debate this issue and set rules of engagement we can all agree upon and follow. >> point is well taken. stop trying to sweep this under the rug. >> let's put it up-front. >> eleanor. >> these are valid questions, and they were debated in the hearing for the confirmation of john brennan this week. it is how a democ
the vietnam war crimes working group collection. and this was a taskforce that was set up in the pentagon. and it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the my lai massacre. >> where 500 men, women, and children were murdered by american g.i.s. >> that's right. the military basically, what they wanted to do was make sure they were never caught flatfooted again by an atrocity scandal. so in the army chief of staff's office, there were a number of army colonels who worked to track all war crimes allegations that bubbled up into the media that gis and recently returned veterans were making public. and they tracked all these. and whenever they could, they tried to tamp down these allegations. >> your book is very important to me. i was there at the white house in the 1960s when president johnson escalated the war. my own great regret is that i didn't see the truth of the war in time didn't see what was happening there. and yet, as i said, you didn't even come to the experience until after it was all over. and yet you have become obsessed with telling this story.
it calls "non- lethal" assistance. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 2012, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really comes down to this. the white house was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department o
, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in which this person, particular person is cooperative or not vis-À-vis capturing the person. in any event, they have a standard. names are nominated. it goes through an interagency process. and finally it makes it to the president. and he makes the final decision who is or is not on the list. does that sound like what you understand? >> i think that's certainly what the government has said happens. and, of course, this is the problem is that the only thing that we ever know about the counterintelligence stuff over the last 10 or 11 years has been, you know, what the government has been forced to say, what journalists have been able to find out, or what human rights organizations like ours have been able to find out on the ground.
to that point, all of a sudden we've got 3,000 dead americans, the trade towers are taken out, the pentagon's been hit. if it hadn't been for the folks on 93 they'd have taken out the white house or the capitol on washington, d.c. worst attack in our history. worse than pearl harbor by far. and it was our job to make certain it didn't happen again. we were concerned for a couple of rps, partly because the expectation was there would be a follow on attack, nearly everybody believed it. but we also received intelligence that al qaeda was trying to get their hands on deadlier weapons. >> rose: do you regret nothing about the aftermath in terms of how we -- >> regarding 9/11? >> rose: everything that we did and that you were and the president were at the center of the response to 9/11. look back and say "we regret nothing"? >> that's my view. >> rose: none? >> correct. >> rose: you know this has been debated, too. >> sure. >> rose: were we prepared for the consequences after saddam was overthrown? >> well, that was the second proposition. you asked me about the aftermath of 9/11, the policies w
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)